Recent Responses

Why is human life valued more than animal life in the absence of religion? Are arguments based on our being intelligent or sentient valid, after all we make the rules. If you could ask an elephant it might offer other criteria to value species by.

Jyl Gentzler November 13, 2005 (changed November 13, 2005) Permalink This question is extremely difficult to answer, because to answer itsatisfactorily, we must first settle the question of the nature ofmorality. Morality proposes certain norms for our behavior and perhapsalso for our emotional responses to certain events. But unless weknow what these norms... Read more

Knowledge Philosophers

Socrates said, "All I know is that I know nothing". What I'm trying to figure out is this: if I know NOTHING, how do I KNOW that I know nothing? It just goes round in circles thus becoming nothing more than a paradox. Would you agree?

Jyl Gentzler November 13, 2005 (changed November 13, 2005) Permalink Peter is right. Many have taken the Socrates of Plato’s early dialogues to be a skeptic at least with regard to knowledge of the most worthwhile things. My own view is that, at least as he’s represented in the Platonic dialogues, Socrates is not a skeptic. He did not believe that it wa... Read more

Biology Gender

Do you think there are two distinct kinds, 'male' and 'female', in terms of gender, biological differences, or social and cultural constraints? I know this seems like a broad question but it is asked with the idea/intention of feminism behind it. If any of you have a brief (or extensive!) philosophical opinion on any issues within this query I would be very interested to know. Thank you for your time.

Louise Antony November 11, 2005 (changed November 11, 2005) Permalink Most philosophers now recognize a distinction between the biological category "sex" and the social category "gender." One's sex is determined by a collection of biological factors that typically (though not always!) go together: chromosomes, anatomy, and hormones. Gender is the social r... Read more

Philosophy

The question I have arises from a number of phenomena I have noticed of late. One is that a number of reasonably respected philosophers have publicly made asses of themselves by demonstrating serious ignorance of the empirical data available in the recent evolution/ID 'controvercy'; a second is that there have been a lot of suggestions that unsupported pseudo-scientific hypotheses (such as 'irreducible complexity') should be assigned to the philosophy classroom (as a kind of dumping-ground for ill-thought-out ideas); and the third is that a lot of the most promising philiosophy seems to be coming from 'thinking scientists' (in neuroscience, physics, and so on) rather than from professional thinkers. So, is there a crisis in philosophy? Science - at least in principle - is grounded in the systematic study of verifiable phenomena; a scientist whose knowledge outside of science is weak and who has little philosophy may not be satisfying as a person but as a scientist can still produce work with real meaning. In contrast, deep scientific knowledge can directly inform philosophy. A philosopher of the mind (for exampple) who is unaware of the latest discoveries in neurobiology is more likely to develop flawed hypotheses than one who is and who thus has access to a better dataset. If the above is true, whither philosophy? Should philosophers become scientists? If not, should they limit themselves to the non-empirical? Is there still room for philosophy as a discrete discipline? (Please don't dismiss this as an attack on philosophy - it's an appeal from a non-scientist who has recently been finding the armchair increasingly uncomfortable!)

Alexander George November 11, 2005 (changed November 11, 2005) Permalink See also Question 169 and Question 220. Log in to post comments

Business Ethics

I've enjoyed a number of the answers posted on the site (I subscribe to the RSS feed). They've been insightful, and have cleverly fleshed out some problems which, on the surface, seemed banal or excessively broad. This question is the latter. Lately I've been wondering if it's possible to institutionalize ethical conduct. That is, in any bureaucratic entity (a business, government, religion, or otherwise) can you effectively create moral rightness inherent to the organization? It seems (in the absence of any thorough research on my part) that prevailing attitudes about morality put individual agents at the heart of the matter, but I was curious if there are any well-grounded dissenting opinions. The reason I ask is that I'm operating a small business, and would like to craft its orchestrating documents (articles of organization, business plan, etc.) as conscientiously as possible. -Jeremy Wilkins

Thomas Pogge November 11, 2005 (changed November 11, 2005) Permalink In regard to the political organization of a society, your question has been extensively and fruitfully debated for centuries, for instance in Plato's Republic, in the Federalist Papers, and in Rawls's work. The discussion shows that social rules, practices, and institutions exert great in... Read more

Environment Ethics

How immoral (amoral?) is it that, despite rising awareness over the past few decades of "Spaceship Earth's" limited resources and carrying capacity, we continue to pursue a growth-dependent economy and grossly materialistic lifestyles that are clearly unsustainable and must have catastrophic consequences, if not for ourselves, probably for our own children and certainly for coming generations. Since we are all participating in the plundering and spoiling of our planet, with whom does responsibility lie? And does the fact, that we are in "collective denial" of the consequences in any way reduce or excuse our culpability? Roger Hicks

Thomas Pogge November 11, 2005 (changed November 11, 2005) Permalink It is not quite right to say that we are all participating in the spoiling of our planet. While the 16 percent of world population residing in the high-income countries live on around $30,000 annually on average, the bottom half of humankind live on less (often very much less) than $1,300... Read more

Children Ethics

Is it morally wrong to tell children that Santa exists? Regardless of how much joy and excitement kids get from believing the Santa myth, it is an outright lie, so how can it be regarded as morally right? Should we always take the moral high ground and tell the truth where children are concerned, or should we make exceptions? When they find out the truth, aren't we teaching children that no one, not even their parents, can be trusted?

Louise Antony November 22, 2005 (changed November 22, 2005) Permalink I have a very strong opinion about this matter, one that results in my condemning some of my very best friends: I think that there are no good arguments for teaching a child to believe in Santa Claus, or for not telling the child the truth the first time he or she asks. So I quite adaman... Read more

Ethics Law

What is the relationship between law and morality? Is the law simply a branch of morality?

Roger Crisp November 11, 2005 (changed November 11, 2005) Permalink Some so-called natural lawyers have claimed that the idea of an immoral law is an oxymoron. If some state diktat says that people of a certain race can't travel into certain areas, then that's not a law. That's fine -- but essentially it involves giving a new and special meaning to the word... Read more

Ethics

As far as I have seen the ideas of “Good” and “bad” are nothing but opinions to certain groups or individuals. I have been told that if this is the case ethical theories are useless. I do not want to believe this sceptical view or morality! What would be the best reason to suggest that what I believe is false and that “Goodness” and “Badness” are in fact objective absolute concepts?

Roger Crisp November 11, 2005 (changed November 11, 2005) Permalink As I understand you, you are inclined to think that there is nothing that is *really* morally good or bad, independently of our opinions. The first thing to note about such a subjectivist view is that many philosophers have defended the position that it's consistent with doing ethical theor... Read more

Language

How do words get their meaning?

Mark Crimmins November 11, 2005 (changed November 11, 2005) Permalink Well, there's a panel of very wise elders who meet in an oaken room in their black robes and officially confer meaning on words. At least, that's the idea you'd get the way some people talk about "correct" meanings, as they bemoan the fact that most people nowadays use the "wrong" ones.... Read more

Recent Responses

Pages